[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 00/03] Preventing zero GPU virtual address allocation

[David Weinehall]

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:50:37AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> It also have just as much risk as reporting EBUSY due to the CL client
> trying to use a pinned buffer.
> 
> However, it is a security hole because the same process can arrange to
> have whatever buffer it likes at 0 then access it through the CL kernel.

I don't really understand what you're getting at here.  While it's true
that userland can have whatever buffer it likes at 0, there's nothing in
the current code that prevents this in the first place, so I cannot see
how this could be a regression.  This feature isn't intended as a
security measure; its sole purpose is to help implementations that
assume 0 = failure to avoid weird bugs.


Regards: David